photography logo advice?

Not sure if this is the right place to post this? I need some advice with my "logo" to put on my photos, it's just not looking right.

This is what I've come up with so far. Just something simple, I really liked the font so I left it at that without adding anything else to it. Is it too simple? If I make business cars, I won't be leaving it just like that on the card, I'll probably add a little something or emphasize the NR with a design around it maybe.

My other question is, when I made it by itself it looked fine, crisp edges and clean, but after adding it to the photo it looks kind of blurry to me? Especially the "photography" part, it doesn't have the sharp clean edges. It gets better when I zoom in, so it might be that I initially created it large and had to size it down on the image? How can I fix this? What size do you make your logos for images? I thought making it large and sizing it down was better than making a smaller size and having to size up.

One more question, is it OK to place it anywhere on the image? I've seen some photographers strictly put it on the bottom corner, and I've seen some place it in different places on the image depending where it's more visible.. so not sure if there's a correct way.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I'm not sure I've the best person to comment on your question but when I had my wedding photography business I printed my logo on the back of images (prints only). Otherwise the logo would go in the lower right hand corner of images that were intended for display only. I like your logo but it is seems a bit distracting in the upper right corner. My eyes were drawn to the logo which I am sure was not your intention. By the way, I do think your dog image is very well done.

georgebowman wrote in post #15577682
I'm not sure I've the best person to comment on your question but when I had my wedding photography business I printed my logo on the back of images (prints only). Otherwise the logo would go in the lower right hand corner of images that were intended for display only. I like your logo but it is seems a bit distracting in the upper right corner. My eyes were drawn to the logo which I am sure was not your intention. By the way, I do think your dog image is very well done.

Thank you! I didn't even notice the logo being distracted, but after you mentioned it I was able to see that. My problem with putting it on the bottom right on all images is that since the text is black, some photos are darker around the corners or on the bottom half, etc. and the logo is not visible

1. I agree move it to the bottom

2. It will need an outline or another color version for dark/ black photos. If you look on my site you can see mine. The word "photography" in mine is black and even with a white outline it's a bit hard to read on dark pics.

3. The logo itself is fine. What is your target market? Are you male or female?

I stated on another thread, as a female, when I see hard lines, I think things that are masculine. This logo looks like it might work well for a landscape photographer, sports photographer, motorcross, cars, etc. For females and elegance/ weddings/ cutesy pets, I usually am more inclined to a curvier font. This is just a personal preference and suggestion. I have also heard it true that men are more attracted to hard lines and women soft. So it's just something to consider based on who your target market is.

abbypanda wrote in post #15577818
1. I agree move it to the bottom

2. It will need an outline or another color version for dark/ black photos. If you look on my site you can see mine. The word "photography" in mine is black and even with a white outline it's a bit hard to read on dark pics.

3. The logo itself is fine. What is your target market? Are you male or female?

I stated on another thread, as a female, when I see hard lines, I think things that are masculine. This logo looks like it might work well for a landscape photographer, sports photographer, motorcross, cars, etc. For females and elegance/ weddings/ cutesy pets, I usually am more inclined to a curvier font. This is just a personal preference and suggestion. I have also heard it true that men are more attracted to hard lines and women soft. So it's just something to consider based on who your target market is.

You're so right about what the sharp or curvy lines portray, I can see what you mean. I never really thought about that, and I'm a female but these sharp lines is what I really liked, but you're right, it does look masculine. I don't really have one specific target market yet, since I haven't been putting myself out there for clients, the only clients I've had are friends and family members for couples shoots, or birthdays/baptism parties. So I guess maybe that is my market, and it is on the feminine side since most of the people asking me to do the shoots are women. I have done some product shots, so maybe that's what drew me in to the hard lines since these lines look good when I put them on product shots.

I will try to come up with different variations using different fonts, maybe I can use more curvier lines for "photography" and try to find a balance between hard/soft on "NR".

If you're charging people/have money, then I'd recommend getting a logo made up for yourself by someone who knows what they're doing.

I went through a load of different makey-uppey logos that I did myself before eventually getting a designer to do one for me. Nowadays, I really like my logo, and I have no intention of changing it anytime soon. Plus a lot of people recognise it locally, which is good.

Also, because my logo is an actual design accompanied with a bit of text, I can take the text away and use just the logo itself as a watermark (which I only do on my own website or in places where it's obvious I'm the photographer - for facebook and the likes I write my website name in a gold writing with little stars on it (can't remember the font name, but I've been using it for about a year now and i think it looks good.

My website is here: http://shanemaguire.ie​/

If you look at the photos, you'll see the logo is in the bottom left of every image, but to make it look a bit more 'stylish' I've turned it diagonally a little, and made it get 'cut off' by the border. I've also added a white 'glow' to it to make it stand out against a black background (which was actually a problem initially, and meant I had to re-do the watermark and take everything off the site and re-upload again from scratch.. was a pain in the ass, but worth it).


Drag your logo into photoshop or paint.net, copy and paste it into a new layer (so you have two logos, one on top of the other). On the one on the bottom, invert the colours (so it'll be white) and add a gaussian blur to it and you'll see it will help create a soft white outline around your black image. Merge the layers, save as a PNG and you're laughing.

Always have the logo on the bottom right though. People will scan the image from top to bottom initially, and they'll cop the watermark straight away, which can interfere with images. This is especially true in photos of people or pets where the heads/eyes are generally at the top and you don't want their faces competing with your logo.


Alternatively, if you plan to actually sell the photos, or the photos are proofs, etc. then the logo goes straight through the middle, made slightly transparent. This is to allow people to see the photo and what it looks like, but they can't print it as the watermark will ruin it, or if they steal it for online use (facebook for example), your name goes with it and won't just be cropped off.

I'll be blunt. Because someone has to be. Not sure if I'm a fan of the logo. It's too..in my face. Very edgy and harsh. I'd recommend a more flowy logo. I used to have an edgy one and ppl on FB who wanted to use the use for their prof would crop off the logo cuz it was distracting. Now they want to include it in every shot with my new one: www.momentsmedia.ca

Keep it simple and elegant. One way to do this is to dramatically reduce the size of the word photography and then change the color from black to a graphite gray or a light gray depending on the shot.

I'd put it at the bottom. IMO, the logo should NOT distract a viewer from the subject. If you look at the photo you posted, my eyes keep wanting to find out what that dark thing is on the top right.

Naraly wrote in post #15577634
My other question is, when I made it by itself it looked fine, crisp edges and clean, but after adding it to the photo it looks kind of blurry to me? Especially the "photography" part, it doesn't have the sharp clean edges. It gets better when I zoom in, so it might be that I initially created it large and had to size it down on the image? How can I fix this? What size do you make your logos for images? I thought making it large and sizing it down was better than making a smaller size and having to size up.

Is your logo raster or vector? I'm guessing raster based on your phrasing of "original size". If you redo your logo (which I'd recommend), be sure to make it vector based so that the sizing is not part of the equation, except for considerations when it comes to printing or pixelated viewing.

If your catering to the 80's Heavy Metal crowd, good job! If not, I would suggest a re-design, preferably hiring a person with a graphic design background.

Get Adobe Illustrator, and export as .ai vector file. I personally don't use black. I chose a colour (yellow) that wasn't too intrusive, and stuck with it, so people recognised the logo easier. Because it is a vector it will resize, so if I want it to block the image more I can. I have it set up in lightroom in several sizes, to make it quick and painless to add.

Ok so definitely get rid of the harsh lines. I made a curvier NR, and picked a different font for the "photography". Still not sure if photography should be this size or smaller compared to NR?
Here it is:

Naraly wrote in post #15603506
Ok so definitely get rid of the harsh lines. I made a curvier NR, and picked a different font for the "photography". Still not sure if photography should be this size or smaller compared to NR?
Here it is:

Kind of don't like the dot.. but people I've showed it to said keep it. (& sorry I forgot to crop out the white space on top)

My reason for not paying to get one professionally done right now is that I don't have a photography business, the only "clients" I have is friends and family but it's only like one or two shoots a month that I'm doing. Sometimes none. I love photography but I don't have enough time to dedicate into turning it into a business, but I thought having a logo would be a good start to just put a name on my photographs and let people know what I do. I don't know, I just thought it was a good idea. Since I don't have a specific target market yet, I feel getting a professionally made logo is for when I know who I'm aiming for. I just do a little bit of "everything" right now, so not aiming my focus to a specific direction yet.

I do want to do more paid shoots, but I think my clients will be from the same "family and friends and friends of friends" circle.

Is this just a bad idea and I don't need a logo?

Logo is only as important as you make it, really.

I find that I can speak with a little bit of experience now that I'm at it a few years (though obviously i'm not "all-knowing, all-powerful", etc. so take my advice with the grain of salt it deserves).

I find that having a logo from day one, if you have any intention of trying to progress forward, is a good thing, because people get used to seeing it and it helps lodge in people's heads.

I started off with just doing family, then a few friends. But these people were putting their photos on Facebook and my logo was changing every time (I went through a fair few) so although lots of different people on Facebook were seeing my photos, they didn't know it was the same person doing them all.

This is good or bad, depending on how you feel about your work. If you think your stuff now is average at best and will improve significantly over time, then changing logo later on may help (as you don't want people to associate you with a poorer quality of work than you hope to later achieve).

However, if you feel you're very proud of your work and it's at a strong level, then having a single logo can help re-enforce this image as you go forward.


Getting a pro to do your logo is good as well because they generally show it off, too (and that means all of their Facebook friends/customers see your logo/name on the designers page). My logo design was relatively inexpensive (I can pass on the details if you wish to message me, but it was great value I got, in my opinion) but i got two separate people contacting me because of the designer putting my link/site/logo on their page.

A small thing, but it worked.

In saying that, I think your improved logo looks quite good, now, anyway. A massive improvement over the first one you have in your opening post. The only downside i can see is that it has no 'design', in that, if you were printing a portfolio or showing off your work in a place where people already know you're the photographer, I think it can look better just having the design (and no text).

This is why, on facebook, my name is on my photos, but on my own website, i just use the logo itself without text (I think it looks drastically better, and if you're on my site, you already know who took the photos anyway).

That's just personal opinion, though.

Moments Media wrote in post #15602411
Now they want to include it in every shot with my new one: www.momentsmedia.ca

I'm not crazy about your logo, to be honest. It seems very generic, to me, personally. However, I must comment on the series of photos on your home page: They're absolutely phenomenal! Shockingly good series of photographs.

Simple but harmonious is what you lock for and I don't see it on the initial image.

chokeslamcena wrote in post #15603967
Logo is only as important as you make it, really.

I find that I can speak with a little bit of experience now that I'm at it a few years (though obviously i'm not "all-knowing, all-powerful", etc. so take my advice with the grain of salt it deserves).

I find that having a logo from day one, if you have any intention of trying to progress forward, is a good thing, because people get used to seeing it and it helps lodge in people's heads.

I started off with just doing family, then a few friends. But these people were putting their photos on Facebook and my logo was changing every time (I went through a fair few) so although lots of different people on Facebook were seeing my photos, they didn't know it was the same person doing them all.

This is good or bad, depending on how you feel about your work. If you think your stuff now is average at best and will improve significantly over time, then changing logo later on may help (as you don't want people to associate you with a poorer quality of work than you hope to later achieve).

However, if you feel you're very proud of your work and it's at a strong level, then having a single logo can help re-enforce this image as you go forward.


Getting a pro to do your logo is good as well because they generally show it off, too (and that means all of their Facebook friends/customers see your logo/name on the designers page). My logo design was relatively inexpensive (I can pass on the details if you wish to message me, but it was great value I got, in my opinion) but i got two separate people contacting me because of the designer putting my link/site/logo on their page.

A small thing, but it worked.

In saying that, I think your improved logo looks quite good, now, anyway. A massive improvement over the first one you have in your opening post. The only downside i can see is that it has no 'design', in that, if you were printing a portfolio or showing off your work in a place where people already know you're the photographer, I think it can look better just having the design (and no text).

This is why, on facebook, my name is on my photos, but on my own website, i just use the logo itself without text (I think it looks drastically better, and if you're on my site, you already know who took the photos anyway).

That's just personal opinion, though.

I'm not crazy about your logo, to be honest. It seems very generic, to me, personally. However, I must comment on the series of photos on your home page: They're absolutely phenomenal! Shockingly good series of photographs.

Very interesting points! That's a good idea about in the future when my work gets better, having a different logo also make a kind of "fresh" start with the image. I believe my work to be average (hopefully, well since I've seen worse). I get compliments, so that's a good thing, but I know these people saying my photography is good, have never even hired a professional photographer before, so they really don't have much to compare it to besides what they might see on the internet. I'm hard on myself, so I make sure to never give a client any photos that I don't think are my absolutely best so far and reflect what I can do at this point. I still have a lot more things to learn.

About the design, I was thinking just having the "NR" as my design, and use it without "photography" when appropriate. Is that still not a very good design? I'm a very simple person, I like simple/minimal things. I went through a thread in this forum about member's logos before creating mine to get an idea, and I noticed most were just "words" so I thought it was ok to do that.

I like you're logo. I think it was very creative how your name was incorporated to the camera design. But I wouldn't see myself being comfortable with using something like that. Probably why I can't come up with anything better, because my "minimal" views are telling me to stay in the safety zone and not have too much or too bulky.


Is at least the "NR" part good enough?. I'm not completely sold on the "photography" part.